Extending real estate reassessment period loses thousands in taxes to county
At the January 27, 2026 Board of Supervisors (BoS) meeting, Item 11 on the agenda titled “Real Estate Reassessment Schedule” was presented by County Administrator Larrowe. After his presentation, Dr. Scothorn asked Mr. Larrowe a couple of questions and then said, “I would like to hear from the board and see what their thoughts are.” With no hesitation and no questions, the Disgruntled Californian (DC) Buchanan District Supervisor Rottman made a motion to approve changing the reassessment cycle to once every five years instead of once every four years! Mr. Michael and Mr. Snyder said they were okay with it. Dr. Scothorn then moved to approve the proposal and the DC seconded it. It passed on a unanimous vote.
Why did it happen so quickly without any questions or discussion? Did DC Rottman, in her first at bat, move quickly to approve it because she wanted the appraisal on her property (which has yet to be appraised for as much as she paid for it 13 years ago) to continue for an additional year? Will anyone, including her, ever know?
Imagine that anyone could have bought a house and 25-plus acres in Botetourt County for $376,000 in August of 2013 and, if what the Botetourt County GIS says the “Current Land Card” is, in fact, the current land card, what was bought in 2013 is now only valued for tax purposes at $368,500 which is $7,500 less than what was paid for it 13 years ago! Not to mention that a 75’x150’ covered riding rink built in 2023 is valued at only $67,500 on top of that. Did anyone wonder why she did not suggest it be moved out until 2030 instead?
While I was in Fincastle earlier this month, I stopped by the Clerk’s Office to glance at recent sales of existing single-family properties. I randomly chose a three-day period and found that there were eight such transactions during those three days. Without setting all eight out individually, those eight transfers were of property that had a cumulative 2024 tax assessed value (TAV) of $3,532,800 and they sold for $4,517,500, which is $984,700 more than their cumulative TAV.
While I realize there could be an explanation for one or two of them other than that they are not assessed for what they are worth, it appears that there might be a significant flaw or two in the process used to value real property for tax purposes.
One of those sales was for only 3.21% more than its TAV, while one was for 47.02% more than its TAV. Others were 32.12%, 45.91%, 38.50%, 35.27%, 28.36% and 24.35% more than their TAV.
And, now that the BoS has seen fit to wait another year before a reassessment, the tax on those properties will remain the same until 2029. If they were assessed in 2027 for 90% of what sellers not forced to sell accepted from buyers not forced to buy, those eight properties alone would generate over $12,000 in additional revenue in the next two years. Multiply that by how many times (30, 50, 75?) that probably happens. Additionally, how could anyone legitimately complain about being taxed on a value of 10% less than what they just paid for their property?
And the above scenario is repeated daily. All one has to do is take a look at the land records. I look at this frequently and seldom, if ever, see a property sold for less than its TAV. If it ever were to happen, there probably would be a sound reason for it. When property sells for 20%, 30%, 40% and more than its TAV, there is one reason for that happening – the sales price represents the fair market value of that property!
Furthermore, the value of real estate for tax purposes should not be determined by when it is purchased. I looked at properties purchased a month or two before the 2024 reassessment. Some of those properties sold for $130,000 to $140,000 more than the 2020 TAV. While that certainly represents the fair market value of those properties, their 2024 assessment was increased to something near to what they had paid in late 2023 (and I daresay that, absent those recent transfers, their 2024 reassessment would not have been anywhere near what they paid), and those people now get to pay the extra taxes for five years just because they bought a month or two or three before the 2024 reassessment.
And, the opposite of that is not fair either. Those who bought in early 2024 for $165,000 to $275,000, or more, than the TAV (and there are certainly those out there) now enjoy paying real estate taxes at the low TAV until 2029 instead of 90% of the fair market value which was established by their purchase over two years ago.
I do not know the solution to this problem. It is a problem because the way it is done does not treat all fairly. I believe that what I saw happen in three days earlier this month happens more often than not and that the revenue generated by doing it uniformly and fairly would exceed the cost of tracking the sales and increasing the value of properties sold during the year to 90% of what was paid for them. Why don’t those who complain about everything complain about a situation such as this, which could actually result in lowering their taxes? Is it because they all know their property is worth more than the amount for which it is assessed and they do not want to pay their fair share? Or, will they come to realize that taxing real estate at its fair market value together with tax revenues from economic development may be the only way to avoid or delay an increase in future real estate tax rates?
Bob Patterson
Fincastle
Buchanan District
Spanberger data center framework lacks urgency
Southwest Virginia Data Center Transparency Alliance welcomes Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s announcement Friday of Virginia’s new Data Center Accountability Framework. It includes important measures to regulate existing data centers. Yet it is not enough and there is still much work to do.
Large issues of public subsidy and developer accountability remain. The data center sales and use tax exemption continues to take billions out of our pockets. We still do not have total assurance that big tech will pay their fair share of the cost of their developments.
In Southwest Virginia especially we continue to need to fight, harder than ever, to take back control of our limited resources that have been ceded by elected officials and their administrative proxies. We are in a major drought and water shortage already, without hyperscale data centers drinking up our resources.
The executive order does not do anything to stop the Google campus at Greenfield, the suspected sale of Wood Haven to Meta that was just approved by the Western Virginia Regional Industrial Facility Authority, and other projects already in motion in Wythe, Pulaski, Carroll, Pittsylvania, and other counties, that were approved without residents’ knowledge or consent.
We continue to call on Gov. Spanberger to call a special session of the General Assembly, and for the General Assembly to pass a moratorium to halt these developments. Only then will there be real local input and protections.
Ben Verschoor and Julie Bivens, Co-Founders, Southwest Virginia Data Center Transparency Alliance
